[202] Ayes Noes Conservatives } Government 6 127 Liberal Unionists } Supporters 1 31 Liberals } The 72 4 Nationalists } Opposition 51 0 Various factions 4 2 --- --- 134 164 [203] _Who's Who_, 1905, Bayley, Thos., J. P., M. P. (L.), Chesterfield Division Derbyshire since 1892; many years on Nottingham Town Council. [204] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 18, 1902, p. 706 and following. [205] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 30, 1903, p. 1,015 and following, and May 11, p. 313 and following. [206] According to _The Times_, May 11, 1903, Captain Norton said: "The Right Honorable Gentleman had told a startling story of how Members on both sides of the House had appealed to him to protect them from the postal servants. Members of the House represented all sections in their constituencies and surely postal servants as voters had the right to approach their representatives, and apply the same kind of pressure that other organized bodies applied." [207] _The Times_, May 18, 1903. [208] _The Times_, August 14, 1903. CHAPTER XII THE BRADFORD COMMITTEE REPORT The Bradford Committee ignores its reference. It recommends measures that would cost $6,500,000 a year, in the hope of satisfying the postal employees, who had asked for $12,500,000 a year. Lord Stanley, Postmaster General, rejects the Bradford Committee's Report; but grants increases in wages and salaries aggregating $1,861,500 a year. In the preceding chapter it was stated that the Government in August, 1903, appointed Sir Edward Bradford, Mr. Charles Booth, Mr. Thomas Brodrick, Mr. R. Burbidge, and Mr. Samuel Fay a Committee "to inquire into the scales of pay received by the undermentioned classes of Established Post Office Servants, and to report whether, having regard to the conditions of their employment and to the rates current in other occupations, the remuneration of (a) Postmen, (b) Sorters (London), (c) Telegraphists (London), (d) Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists (Provincial) is adequate." No further question was submitted to the Committee. The Committee, in May, 1904, reported: "We have not seen our way to obtain any specific evidence as to the comparative rates of wages current in other occupations. So far as regards this portion of the reference to us,[209] we came to the conclusion that no really useful purpose would be served by asking employers of labor to furnish precise details of the wages paid by them. Certain official information is already available, being obtained and published from time to time by the Board of Trade. This information, supplemented by our own experience, affords more reliable data than any particulars we could hope to obtain in the way of evidence within the limits of an inquiry of reasonable duration."